Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So just to be clear, intentionally putting smoke directly into your lungs is not bad for you; is that your position?
Because of edibles, your question is irrelevant. But OK, I'll bite:
For one thing, the amount of smoke ingested by a typical pot smoker does not even come close to that of a cigarette smoker. Not even in the same ball park.
But I'll stop here because you already have assumed the position of most prohibitionists: Facts do not matter.
But, a word of advice. You better produce the first case of pot-caused cancer in the world if you are going to play the cancer card to further your cause. Otherwise, let's talk about keeping it illegal just because you don't like the smell.
And again: I am NOT a lib. This is one of the most bipartisan issues out there.
I'm trying to understand the double standard. Neo Progs detest cigarettes (rightfully so) but think pot smoking is the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever. They're both carcinogens, stink like crazy and are terrible for your body, yet leftists are staunch advocates for recreational pot everywhere and staunch advocates against cigarettes everywhere. So please, help me understand the disconnect. Thanks
Smoking cigarettes is carcinogenic. Smoking pot is carcinogenic. Cigarette smoke reeks. Pot smoke reeks. Injesting cigarette smoke into your body is terrible for it. Injesting pot smoke into your body is terrible for it. The left decries cigarette smoke almost universally (rightfully so, its disgusting) but loudly celebrating and advocating for the legalization of recreational pot smoking almost universally. Why would more harmful intoxicants being made legal be a good thing, especially when you (not you specifically) are so adamantly opposed to a similar legal intoxicant?
As I said above, I'm not opposed to "a similar legal intoxicant", by which I take you to mean tobacco.
I'm trying to understand the double standard. Neo Progs detest cigarettes (rightfully so) but think pot smoking is the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever. They're both carcinogens, stink like crazy and are terrible for your body, yet leftists are staunch advocates for recreational pot everywhere and staunch advocates against cigarettes everywhere. So please, help me understand the disconnect. Thanks
There's no double standard at all. Who is trying to make tobacco illegal? It's conservatives that want a complete ban on marijuana with harsh prison sentences for simple possession while at the same time allowing cigarette smoking everywhere like it's the 1970s. As far as I know, nobody is advocating to allow cannabis smoking in places where cigarette smoking is banned.
I saw a headline on CNN the other day (it was on in the gym, I would never intentionally watch it) and it was decrying Jeff Sessions stance on pot and how it would hurt the multi-billion dollar Pot Industry, but CNN would never, ever take a stand in support of the cigarette industry, and in fact are always against it (rightfully so), yet both pot smoking and cigarette smoking are carcinogenic. So CNN is anti Big Tobacco, but pro Big Pot. I don't understand the hypocrisy.
In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
